Nolo on TenantNet
Return to: Nolo on TenantNet Index
Flak-Catching With the Lawyerless
by Ralph Warner
Copyright © 1993 Nolo Press
We've made some headway in righting the wrongs of discrimination. But
reform
hasn't made it over the threshhold of the courtroom doors.
Discrimination against people based on imagined group traits is always
nasty--especially when it results in the denial of opportunity to
fundamental
rights, such as a job, a decent education or a freely-chosen place to
live. The
United States' powerful commitment to fight discrimination based on
race, sexual
preference and age--to mention just a few--defines what is best about
our nation
in the second half of the 20th century.
Unfortunately, despite progress in many areas of our public life,
courts remain a
stronghold of resistance to the defining ideal that all Americans are
entitled to
equal treatment. Defined as a "non-lawyer" by the legal establishment,
a person
who appears on his or her own behalf--or pro per--is routinely treated
like a
third-class citizen by lawyers and judges, who seem to forget that
courts are not
their private preserve.
Lack of respect for anyone who is not a card-carrying member of the
legal
fraternity is obvious from the moment you enter a courthouse. Unlike
most
government and many private facilities, maps of the building,
explanatory
pamphlets or an information desk are missing.
Looking more closely at a typical courthouse, the intent to
discriminate against
pro pers is even more obvious. Some types of favoritism are petty.
Lawyers often
are provided private work areas and phones, while everyone else is
relegated to
benches and pay phones.
Other forms of favoritism are far more fundamental. Court clerks will
often
provide a confused lawyer step-by-step guidance to the wrangling rules
of filing
or scheduling cases, while rejecting the far more basic questions of
non-lawyers
with a preemptory nod at a posted sign that reads: Court Clerks Cannot
Give Legal
Advice--For a Referral to a Lawyer, Call the County Bar Association.
This mean-spirited attitude toward the public is also reflected in the
courtroom.
Lawyers, even those who pant in ten minutes late, often have their
cases heard
first. And when a pro per finally does get a chance to have a word in
court, the
judge is all too likely to greet him or her with a patronizing attitude
and a
closed mind. For example, someone who asks that an impenetrable hunk of
legal
jargon be translated into English, makes a small, easily-corrected
mistake or
even hesitates a second too long is likely to be accused of clogging
the court's
busy schedule and told to get a lawyer.
Judges often defend the way they treat non-lawyers by comparing
themselves to a
baseball umpire suddenly faced with novice players who don't know the
rules. "We
do the best we can under difficult circumstances," they often claim.
Nonsense.
Courts, as arbiters of fundamental rights, have an affirmative duty to
make their
rules accessible and understandable--something organized sports do far
better,
incidentally. The present system, under which the legal profession
hides both
substantive law and legal procedure, while judges then lecture pro pers
for being
ignorant of both, is pathetic.
To take just a few examples of how our present judicial system
discriminates
against non-lawyers, consider that:
- Even though the great majority of issues considered by a judge
are
unopposed--with success often assured by the right paperwork--no
effort is made
to provide easy-to-understand forms and instructions.
- Even though mastering both substantive law and legal procedure
necessitates
gaining access to good information, little work--individual efforts
of a few
dedicated law librarians notwithstanding--is done to make law
libraries and their
materials accessible and understandable to the public.
- Even though a significant number of judges and clerks are
routinely and
insultingly hostile to pro pers, absolutely nothing is done to
educate them to
change their behavior or discipline them if they don't.
To give Americans a decent chance to cope with their routine legal
problems
without a lawyer, a radical change in judicial attitude is needed--and
needed
fast. But no relief seems near. Although quick to appoint learned
commissions to
look into claims of discrimination by minority or female attorneys, for
the most
part our supposedly learned judges don't even understand how badly they
treat the
general public.
It's way past time they found out.
Related Products:
Books
The above link is connected to Nolo's on-line store where you will
find a detailed description of each product.
The selected articles originally appeared in the Nolo News and are Copyright © Nolo Press 1996 and reproduced here with permission.
If you find them of value, we encourage you to visit Nolo Press at their web site http://www.nolo.com.
If you wish to post them on-line or otherwise distribute them, first read Nolo's copyright policy.
|
